Who would win in a one on one duel?

Here's how I would believe it would play out with a knight dressed in full plate with sword and shield and a samurai in lamellar armor with the typical two swords, katana and wakizashi.

The knight would try to bull rush and knock the samurai off his feet with his shield. The samurai would side step the knight's initial attack and strike with his katana. Seeing that the katana could not penetrate the full plate of the knight, the samurai would change tactics.

As the knight turned to launch his second attack, he would face a violent jujutsu (precursor and more violent form of the sports oriented jiu-jitsu seen today) move that would land the knight on his back. The samurai would then draw his wakizashi, step over the knight, slightly lift the knight's helm and issue the coup de grace.

Second scenario would be same knight on horseback, armed with a lance, and same samurai, now armed with daikyu (bow).

The knight would charge and lower his lance, readying for the strike. Samurai, calmly sitting astride his horse, would draw his daikyu, aim, release, and watch as his arrow pierced the slit in the knight's visor and ended up in the knight's right eye.

Game over either way for the knight.

Thoughts?

*edited because full text did not post*

didn't they do this on an episode of Deadliest Warrior...?

Knight. The Samurai's blade was far sharper and more advanced, but it was brittle and more likely to break. With a knight's armor and parrying, he'd be at a disadvantage. He'd likely be smaller than your average European, with a shorter reach. And then there's the armor, which was more flexible and feasible than previously thought. Knights weren't lumbering tanks, they sacrificed some mobility but the advantages of their armor were a staple for hundreds of years for a reason. It worked.

Don't forget that medieval knights were well-trained in wrestling while armored, so that might not be so easy.

Really, it comes down to individual skill. Both samurai and knights were professional warriors who spent most of their lives training. If the samurai is Miyamoto Musashi and the knight is an average schmoe (for a knight), then the samurai will win. If the knight is Johannes Lichtenauer and the samurai is an average schmoe (for a samurai) then the knight will win. If it is Miyamoto vs Lichtenauer, then all bets are off.

Yup. Samurai would have worn armor like that if they could have afforded to do so. Japan just had a major shortage of good quality iron (which is also why the steel for katanas was folded so many times - to get out the impurities. The folding techniques did not make the steel better than European equivalents, they just brought it up to par.)

The knight have the big advantage that he only needs to hit the samurai once to get him off guard and at a disadvantage. It's no gentleman fencing, there's a big sword meant for crushing vs a brittle but very cool and good-looking katana. The knight would swing his large sword as a club, and eventually hit the samurai sword and break it, and then eventually hit the samurai and break some of his bone(s), and then smash the rest of the body to death.

The knight would probably leave off the big two-hander for dueling a lightly armored opponent. A more gracile longsword or an arming sword and a shield would be a more appropriate choice.

The knight would stab the samurai just as he thrusts his katana into the knight's stomach.

Then their seconds would step in and duel! Who would win that, Lexicon?

None. Tyrannosaurus grants no mercy to either.

Exactly, people in full plates could easily sprint and engage into close quarter combat, including grappling, grabbing the enemy's blade and whatnot. In fact large scaled battle fields likely saw much more wrestling and hitting than actual sword fighting among the foot troops.

It would be very interesting to see such a fight though.

What is the equivalent of a samurai squire?

My thoughts? Both of your situations have very unlikely outcomes based on very contrived circumstances. Especially the second one. The chances of putting an arrow through the narrow slit of a knight's visor while he is riding is almost negligible at any distance. That is not to say the samurai cannot defeat the knight, but not by such fanciful means.

Let's be serious: how exactly often were katana used in battles? I heard it wasn't quite that much.

I'd pick a French rapier over a Katana any day. A much more versatile and deadly weapon.

Not true: the metallurgy of contemporary European swords was far more advanced than their Japanese counterparts, and the design was much more nuanced and subtle than the "sharpened steel bars" that they're often assumed to be; European martial arts are also significantly more complex than is often assumed.

Hollywood's katana obsession has a lot to answer for.

not much when it comes to large scale warfare.. in large Battles the Japanese Soldiers of the time would more often use a Spear, Pike, or Halberd (EDIT: And bows.. the Japanese were amazing Archers)...

Katanas were used more when it comes to duels or in small battles (like 2v2 or 3v3)....


Games and Hollywood have an obsession with Katana's and make them seem extremely powerful.. which is not quite true...



IRL, what was special about the Katana was not its Materials, or crafting process.. what was special was its Shape and the way it was worn...

it was designed so its wielder could Unsheathe it and deliver a quick blow in one, fluid movement.. an action that was more difficult with the swords Europeans and those in the Middle-east were using at the same time..


However, when it comes to large scale battles, a Katana would be one of the last swords I'd grab...

Actually I would place the samurai as an expert archer of their time. Second only behind the Mongols.

I had the chance to visit one of their yabusame (horse archery) schools while in Japan. Believe or not they still practice the art of horse archery to this day. In one display an archer shot the stem ( THE STEM!) off three apples in succession while on a galloping horse. So I certainly do believe a samurai could have easily accomplished shooting an arrow through the slit of a knight's visor. Ending his life.

I honestly believe the weaponry and armour doesn't matter, but at the same time I appreciate that the weapons and armour are what people are excited to talk about so go ahead.

But I believe it comes down to the hominid underneath, like any form of competition, it's never about the shoes or the equipment. This will vary from individual to individual, but I'd perhaps consider the best evidence to use as an indication for this question to be fights that took place between traditional masters of oriental martial arts vs adept practicioners of western combative sports, these occurred around the turn of the last millenium, and they didn't go so well for the oriental martial artists, on the whole, with exceptions and like I said it would come down to the individuals involved.

Um. Another samurai!

in terms of piercing definitely however I would go with a sabre two handed sabres are not very common but I would want one and definitely with knuckle guard which fit

this description the sweet spot on a curved blade is agh my blood boils at the sheer phallic might of it I am envious of the time they were used (not stupid just envious)

There's a difference between a stationary target that has no self-preservation instincts versus one on a horse that does. And it doesn't make sense for the samurai to aim for the slit.

It depends on which European swords you are comparing to the katana. The katana is a very elegant and deadly weapon, but it is highly specialized. An estoc is not at all elegant, and not even particularly deadly, but unlike a katana, it gives you a reasonable chance at killing a guy wearing plate. Medieval swords changed not on what was the best design, just what was needed to fight the armor of the moment. Whereas the design of a katana was refined for centuries for a single purpose.

And I have seen a western archer shoot a water droplet out of the air. It is impressive, but not practical. A knight's helmet was designed to keep sharp objects from coming through the visor, which was angled and not close up against the knight's face. The arrow would not only have to hit the right spot on a moving target, but it would need to come from precisely the right angle, in which case it would be sticking in his cheek, not his eye.

Europe also produced excellent archer cultures like the famed Welsh longbowman or the archers of Lithuania. If it had been practical, they would have shot for the visor rather than bothering to learn how to use bows powerful enough to just punch right through the knight, armor and all.

The design of medieval European arms and armor was a collaborative effort between large groups of disparate people on three continents who had to constantly adapt to each other's innovations, while the Japanese remained mostly isolated. It does not matter if the samurai is from 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, or 1500, he is radically outclassed by a European in the equipment department. Especially armor. A katana is not designed to combat mail, let alone plate. It does put him at a severe disadvantage. In any proposed scenario, however, it is likely that the knight would agree to a duel without harness.

Samurai weren't morons, why would they try and slice through a heavily armored opponent?

They probably would have used one of those pole swords, or one of those 7 foot tall bows.

From the forum rules:

Hmm... Lightly armoured, little experienced squire, versus another highly trained, very skilled samurai...

Squire utilizes weak appearance to his advantage, successfully catching the samurai off-guard, mortally wounding the samurai, but not before the samurai plunges his katana/wakisashi/pike/whatever weapon the samurai has into the young squire.